The Order of the Garter was started just a few years after Philip the Fair arrested the Templars. What mediocre company William's now in.

Prince William, 25, is appointed a garter knight by the Queen
Prince William was awarded his first major royal honour yesterday when the Queen appointed him a garter knight.

Founded by Edward III in 1348, the Order of the Garter is the most senior and the oldest British Order of Chivalry and is one of the few honours in the Queen's gift to give without Prime Ministerial advice.

The second-in-line-to-the-throne will be officially installed as a Royal Knight Companion of the Order Garter and given his insignia by his grand-mother during a private service at Windsor Castle in June......

Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Prince William initiated into The Order

TonyGosling wrote:

The Order of the Garter was started just a few years after Philip the Fair arrested the Templars. What mediocre company William's now in.

Being a Royal, that's hardly a revelation. As it happens though, your implied link between the dissolution of the Templars over 30 years before and the creation of this Order, is off the mark. The order was created by Edward so as to build on a revived neo-Arthurian round table image, consolidating his position domestically after the battle of Crecy in 1346. What exercised Edward was not so much the Templars, but the fate that befell his father, Edward II, whose deposition and death had robbed the monarchy of the aura of legitimacy & nigh-invincibility created by the reign especially of Edward I. Never before, prior to the demise of Edward II, had a monarch been successfully deposed--in that sense the Order of the Garter was an attempt to buttress the 'ideology of legitimation' of the medieval ruling class: and has survived till this day as one element in the ideological firmament of the current ruling class. Philip the 'Fair' by the way, is more usually remembered as Philip the False Coiner, due to his continual debasing of the currency.

Was that Edward II who got a red hot poker up his ass?
Really, Larry, stop processing our history as if it's some kind of normal political procedure.
The Order of the Garter is indeed some kind of dark ritualistic cult with some power in its hands.
Stop your perjorative and minimising ways or be gone_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Was that Edward II who got a red hot poker up his ass?
Really, Larry, stop processing our history as if it's some kind of normal political procedure.
The Order of the Garter is indeed some kind of dark ritualistic cult with some power in its hands.
Stop your perjorative and minimising ways or be gone

to call you ignorant would be to imply you possess any kind of critical faculties--the above idiocy needs no further comment.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Prince William initiated into The Order

TonyGosling wrote:

Nice bit of verbiage Larry. You sound like an insider. Ever thought of a career as a masonic after-dinner speaker?

So, having more than a superficial knowledge of history gleaned from You-Tube makes me a mason does it? Beyond parody...

Quote:

Anyone having big trouble with the bankers, as Philip the Fair was, is a champion of the people in my book

Would that include Robert Maxwell then? And by the way, when Philip debased the currency (by clipping coins etc) the key losers were not bankers, but people, who found their hard earned savings were worth less than they had believed.

Larry O'Hara wrote:

Your implied link between the dissolution of the Templars over 30 years before and the creation of this Order, is off the mark....blah blah blah.....

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Prince William initiated into The Order

I wouldn't have thought you'd have been giving that partial view of history in the bankers defence Larry.
Reinforcing the centuries long grudges of the Templars.
Specially rushing to the defence of the world's first multinational corporation.
And the Order of the Garter.
You sure are the dark horse of the forum.

Larry O'Hara wrote:

the key losers were not bankers, but people, who found their hard earned savings were worth less than they had believed.

I'm not too sure we should be engaging these Class War theoreticians who appear not to have the slightest understanding of historical progression, despite their disparagement of activists here as numbskulls.
They appear to be party to the very real attacks, as reported elsewhere here, on this movement
For all their jokiness they really are a very bum deal_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: Prince William initiated into The Order

TonyGosling wrote:

Larry O'Hara wrote:

How am I defending bankers? Ludicrous!

By having a cheap pop at plucky old Philip the Fair who took on the Templar bankers... presumably because of your anti-monarchical prejudice.

So in a few posts I become transformed from a defender of monarchy (i'e. the Order of the Garter) back into a 'prejudivced' anti-monarchist. Priceless!

Quote:

Would you criticise Harold Wilson for taking on the City of London as he did in the 1970s?

No: I would criticise him precisely because he didn't take on bankers or other capitalists--he made it clear from NEC meetings in opposition he did not agree with, nor would he implement, the Left 'Alternative Economic Strategy'. Tell me: have you derived your exceedingly shaky grasp of history from off-planet tutorials?

As for Mr Wrong, can somebody point out to this buffoon I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of Class War (though I have good friends and comrades who are)?

You're exactly that type of person, Larry. Eternally in conflict. You gave your contact as Class War in one instance. You are in part and parcel that little black anarchist hooded chaos stimulating individual. That's your vibe. You're very dangerous and in cahoots and I'll shadow you every step of your way. You're pretty much the same as the BNP, -a shadow force for the governing party
Cheers mate - hope you have a good day of enslavement - such is your lot_________________http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Didn't you know that's why he was crowbarred out of office by the far right and MI5?

Are you in fact the same Larry O'Hara who edits a pseudo-left magazine?

Larry O'Hara wrote:

TonyGosling wrote:

Would you criticise Harold Wilson for taking on the City of London as he did in the 1970s?

No: I would criticise him precisely because he didn't take on bankers or other capitalists--he made it clear from NEC meetings in opposition he did not agree with, nor would he implement, the Left 'Alternative Economic Strategy'. Tell me: have you derived your exceedingly shaky grasp of history from off-planet tutorials?

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Prince William initiated into The Order

TonyGosling wrote:

So you haven't read Robin Ramsay's Prawn Cocktail Party or any other account of Wilson's taking on the City of London Larry, shame on you!

Ramsay was never sympathetic to the Labour Left: I was, up to a point. Hence he never believed their Alternative Economic Strategy was remotely feasible. I did--indeed, my knowledge is not derived from books alone, I was active on the Left throughout the 1970s, including (for a time) the Labour Party itself.

Quote:

Didn't you know that's why he was crowbarred out of office by the far right and MI5?

Yes, I am fully aware of the Wilson Plot, and if you were, you would know it was motivated by an (unfounded) fear he was really a Leftist & KGB asset to boot. If you really want to rewrite history & present Wilson as a genuine Leftist, you're even more wide of the mark than usual. Perhaps you might care to tell us which Prime Minister directed the security service to bug the leaders of the 1966 Seamen's strike? I'll give you a clue--it wasn't McMillan, Douglas-Home or Ted Heath....If Wilson really was a genuine Leftist, why do you think the Labour Left rewrote the policies in opposition? Instructions from the Illuminati? On reflection, you probably do think that.

Quote:

Are you in fact the same Larry O'Hara who edits a pseudo-left magazine?

I love it--somebody (you Mr Gosling) who has posted on Indymedia pretending to be a member of Class War in order to spread MI5 smears about them, calling me a "pseudo-Leftist". Love it!!

Last edited by Larry O'Hara on Wed May 07, 2008 8:41 am; edited 2 times in total

You're exactly that type of person, Larry. Eternally in conflict. You gave your contact as Class War in one instance. You are in part and parcel that little black anarchist hooded chaos stimulating individual. That's your vibe. You're very dangerous and in cahoots and I'll shadow you every step of your way. You're pretty much the same as the BNP, -a shadow force for the governing party
Cheers mate - hope you have a good day of enslavement - such is your lot

even for this board, you are the sort of contributor for whom (as John Major once said) I really can hear the white coats flapping. Can you try the above post in English?...On second thoughts, don't bother.

The Order of the Garter
Again, in England, the property of the Templars was also transferred to the Knights Hospitallers, by King Edward II, the son-in-law of Phillip IV. Edward II was married to Phillip IV’s daughter, Isabella of France. But Edward II initially refused to implement the papal order enforced by his father-in-law. Between October 13, 1307 and January 8, 1308 the Templars went unmolested in England. During this period many fugitive Templars, seeking to escape torture and execution, fled to apparent safety there. Although, after the intercession of Pope Clement V, King Edward ordered the seizure of members of the order in England on January 8, 1308. Only handfuls of Templars were duly arrested however. But most Templars in England, as well as elsewhere outside France, altogether escaped arrest, let alone torture and execution.[13]

Rather, the traditions of the Templars seems to have taken on a new guise, under the Order of the Garter, founded by Edward II’s on, Edward III King of England. Edward III himself married Philippa of Avesne, who was descended from Louis IX’s brother, Charles I of Anjou. Charles I was the father of Charles II King of Jerusalem and Sicily, who married Maria of Hungary. Their daughter, Margaret of Sicily, then married Philip IV’s brother, Charles III of Valois. Their daughter Jeanne de Valois was Philipa’s mother.

The inspiration of the order, founded in 1348, as “a society, fellowship and college of knights.” was the King Arthur and the Round Table. Various legends have been described to explain the origin of the Order. The most popular legend involves the “Countess of Salisbury”, possibly Edward’s cousin, Joan of Kent. While the Countess was dancing with or near Edward at Eltham Palace, her garter is said to have slipped from her leg to the floor. When the surrounding courtiers snickered, the king supposedly picked it up and tied it to his own leg, exclaiming Honi soit qui mal y pense, meaning “evil upon he who thinks it”. This phrase has become the motto of the Order of the Garter.

As historian Margaret Murray pointed out, the garter is an emblem of witchcraft. Garters are worn in various rituals as magical properties and are also used as badges of rank. The garter is considered the ancient emblem of the high priestess. In some traditions a high priestess who becomes Queen Witch over more than one coven adds a silver buckle to her garter for each coven under her. According to Murray:

The importance of the lace or string among the witches was very great as it was the insignia of rank. The usual place to carry it on the person was round the leg where it served as a garter. The beliefs of modern France give the clue as to its importance. According to traditions still current, there is a fixed number of witches in each canton, of whom the chief wears the garter in token of his (or her) high position; the right of becoming chief is said to go by seniority. In Haute Bretagne a man who makes a pact with the Devil has a red garter.[14]

Margaret Murray believed that all the Plantagenets were witches. She said Edward III founded two covens. As the story is understood, Edward did not wish to have the people think that the Countess was a witch. The incident about the Countess of Salisbury’s blue garter is significant since it wa a symbol of witchcraft. Edward III's actions were to let Lady Salisbury know that her secret of her witch-hood was safe with him, because he himself was a priest of a coven.

According to another legend, King Richard the Lionhearted was inspired in the twelfth century by St George the Martyr while fighting in the Crusades to tie garters around the legs of his knights, who subsequently won the battle. King Edward III supposedly recalled the event in the fourteenth century when he founded the Order.

St. George, the patron saint of England, Georgia and Moscow, the origin of the knightly of rescuing a maiden from a dragon. St. George was a soldier of the Roman Empire who later became a Christian martyr. The traditional account of his life is considered to have originated in the fourth century. George was a Cappadocian, was born in Cilicia, and his mother was from Lydda, Palestine.

According to the legend, a dragon was threatening a town in Libya, and the people were forced to sacrifice their sheep to appease it. However, when their sheep ran out, they starting sacrificing their children, chosen by means of a lottery. Eventually, the kings daughter was chosen. Saint George, then a knight errant, wounds the dragon with his lance. He then instructs the princess to remove her girdle and to use it around the dragon’s neck. The princess then leads the dragon back to the city, and Saint George tells the people he will kill the dragon if the entire town will become Christians. The dragon is killed and the townspeople are all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The legend of Saint George is not a Christian story at all, but is a Christian adaptation of the typical dual of the Middle Eastern dying-god against the Sea-Dragon. The Dragon is Baal, and the reference to child-sacrifices in the legend is an allusion to the practice that was typical of his cult in ancient times. Historians note that the origin of the saint is Cappadocia, and is similar to the ancient god named Sabazios. The rites of Dionysus were the same as those performed in honor of Cybele in Asia Minor. Known as the Magna Mater, the Great Mother, Cybele, was identified with Venus and worshipped as the goddess of fertility. Her consort was Attis, known Adonis. Attis, named after the Phrygian name for goat,[15] became one with Dionysus-Sabazius, or assumed some of his characteristics.[16]

The cult of St. George first reached England when the Templars, who came were introduced to the cult presumably through their contact with the Rupenids of Armenian Cilicia, returned from the Holy Land in 1228. The battle flag of the Templars, known as the Beauseant, in some versions had four quarters, black and white, with a red cross patee in the center. Others, however, say that the red cross had straight arms, like the St. George cross of England.[17] An account known as the Golden Legend, recounts that St. George appeared during the First Crusade, with such a cross, emblazoned on his white armour, as he led the liberation of Jerusalem from the Muslims.[18]

www.Terrorism-Illuminati.com
Has some interesting things to say about Willy's new Order

"Edward II initially refused to implement the papal order enforced by his father-in-law. Between October 13, 1307 and January 8, 1308 the Templars went unmolested in England. During this period many fugitive Templars, seeking to escape torture and execution, fled to apparent safety there. Although, after the intercession of Pope Clement V, King Edward ordered the seizure of members of the order in England on January 8, 1308. Only handfuls of Templars were duly arrested however. But most Templars in England, as well as elsewhere outside France, altogether escaped arrest, let alone torture and execution.

Rather, the traditions of the Templars seems to have taken on a new guise, under the Order of the Garter, founded by Edward II’s on, Edward III King of England. Edward III himself married Philippa of Avesne, who was descended from Louis IX’s brother, Charles I of Anjou. Charles I was the father of Charles II King of Jerusalem and Sicily, who married Maria of Hungary. Their daughter, Margaret of Sicily, then married Philip IV’s brother, Charles III of Valois. Their daughter Jeanne de Valois was Philipa’s mother.

Somewhat blows away for ever the myth that Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha doesn't do politics.Starts looking more and more like medieval rule by secrecy.
What an insight into the grasping royal mind and this cosy club of bigoted Christian Zionists - it works like this then:
MI6 create Al Mujaroon
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2873/35/
MI6 brief Queen
Queen orders arrest and change in law to allow extradition to her Christian Zionist masters in the US.
Like the Mafia - keep it in the family

Queen lobbied for Abu Hamza arrest
Monarch 'aghast' radical cleric could not be arrested and lobbied home secretary, according to BBC's security correspondent
Peter Walker - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 September 2012 09.44 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/queen-lobbied-abu-hamza-ar rest
The Queen lobbied the then-home secretary to secure the arrest of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Islamist cleric who faces imminent extradition to the US, the BBC's security correspondent has said.
Frank Gardner said the monarch personally told him she was aghast that Abu Hamza could not be arrested during the period when he regularly delivered vehemently anti-British views as imam of Finsbury Park mosque in north London.
During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme about the wider issue of the 54-year-old's newly approved extradition to the US, Gardner said of Abu Hamza's former activities: "The Queen was pretty upset that there was no way to arrest him. She couldn't understand – surely there had been some law that he'd broken? In the end, sure enough there was. He was eventually convicted and sentenced for seven years for soliciting to murder and racial hatred."
A clearly surprised James Naughtie, interviewing Gardner, described this revelation as "a corker". Gardner replied: "Yes, I thought I'd drop that in. She told me."
Gardner added: "She spoke to the home secretary at the time and said, surely this man must have broken some laws. Why is he still at large? He was conducting these radical activities and he called Britain a toilet. He was incredibly anti-British and yet he was sucking up money from this country for a long time."
Gardner did not specify which home secretary was lobbied, but it appears most likely to be David Blunkett, who held the post from 2001 to 2004, at the peak of Abu Hamza's infamy before he was arrested. Following an initial arrest in August 2004, Abu Hamza was convicted in 2006 of 11 charges connected to soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.
The government has since battled to secure his extradition to the US, where he is wanted in connection with alleged plans to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, as well as claims he provided material support to the Taliban. He is also wanted in connection with allegations that he was involved in hostage-taking in Yemen in 1998.
Abu Hamza's eight-year battle against extradition ended on Monday when the European court of human rights c rejected his appeal, as well as those of four other terrorism suspects, and agreed an earlier ruling that their human rights would not be violated by the prospect of life sentences and solitary confinement in a US prison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/queen-lobbied-abu-hamza-ar rest_________________www.rethink911.orgwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.l911t.comwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Last edited by TonyGosling on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:38 pm; edited 3 times in total

Channel 4 news just broadcast the actual audio from this morning's BBC Radio 4 Today programme
Good on them
Main ITN bulletin didn't even mention the story
Absolutely amazing insight into the arrogance of the queen & her active role in the destruction of civil liberties
Also the introduction of the appalling US extradition treaty Blunkett subsequently signed!_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com

Her majesty acting in interests of foreign power, Israel, to pervert the course of justice
I trust she will come to the attention of 'F' Branch (counter-subversion) as she gets her way & Abu Hamza & friends are kidnapped by US to
Get Them Off Our Hands
So what about Haroon Rashid Aswat the suspected mastermind of 7/7?
Did you have him shipped out of the country to avoid answering those murder and terrorism charges?
I do hope not your majesty because just like ordering the assassination of your daughter in law that as a serious criminal offence ma'am._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com

Should BBC have let Queen off the hook over Abu Hamza?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/should-bbc-ha ve-let-queen-off-the-hook-over-abu-hamza-16216068.html
By Terri Judd and Ian Burrell - Wednesday, 26 September 2012
The BBC was criticised last night for making an abject apology to the Queen after one of its senior journalists claimed that the monarch politically intervened in the case of the radical Islamist cleric Abu Hamza.
The BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said on breakfast radio that the Queen had lobbied a Home Secretary about what she saw as the unduly lenient treatment of Abu Hamza, questioning why he had not already been arrested.
Within four hours, the BBC – nine days into the stewardship of its new director-general George Entwistle – apologised to Buckingham Palace, saying that Gardner, one of the most respected journalists of his generation, had betrayed the Queen's confidence. The corporation "deeply regretted" his "wholly inappropriate" revelation, it said.
Republicans and some journalists criticised the BBC apology, insisting it was right that the public learnt of such interventions.
Gardner's disclosure is troublesome for Buckingham Palace because the Queen traditionally does not intervene in public policy. As a constitutional monarch, the 86-year-old is supposed to maintain political neutrality. She holds a private weekly audience with the prime minister of the day – she is on her 12th – and so the public rarely ever learns her opinion on any matter of consequence.
Kevin Marsh, a former editor of Today and former editor of the BBC College of Journalism who now runs the media teaching company OffspinMedia, said: "I can understand the new Director-General would want to close this down quickly but I thought the apology was a little excessive."
He added: "I was surprised when I heard Frank Gardner make the comment because he is terribly meticulous."
The revelation and subsequent apology elicited an angry response from Republic, the pressure group that lobbies for the abolition of the monarchy, which accused the BBC of a pro-royalist public relations exercise.
"The decision to disclose this one conversation while keeping all else secret smacks of a deliberate PR stunt to put the Queen on the right side of public opinion," Republic claimed.
Its chief executive Graham Smith accused the Queen of "meddling in the political process", adding: "We're told the Queen is above politics and never gets involved, yet she has apparently admitted that she has interfered in a controversial issue."
Gardner, who was not available for comment following the BBC apology yesterday, is understood not to have felt especially constrained by royal protocol given his specialism in security rather than Palace matters, and to have initially thought his disclosure of marginal significance.
Details of the Queen's comments emerged as it was revealed that the radical cleric, 54, and four other terror suspects could be sent to the US within days after the European Court of Human Rights threw out their request for an appeal to the Grand Chamber.
Discussing the issue on Radio 4's Today programme yesterday morning, Gardner said: "I can tell you that the Queen was pretty upset that there was no way to arrest him. She couldn't understand – surely there had been some law that he had broken?
"In the end, sure enough, there was. He was eventually convicted and sentenced for seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred."
His surprised colleague, the presenter James Naughtie, replied that this revelation was "a corker". Gardner said: "She told me she spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said, 'Surely this man must have broken some laws. Why is he still at large? He was conducting these radical activities and he called Britain a toilet. He was incredibly anti-British and yet he was sucking up money from this country for a long time.'"
Buckingham Palace declined to comment on private conversations.
Gardner did not specify which Home Secretary the Queen had lobbied, although David Blunkett, who held the post from 2001 to 2004, at the peak of Abu Hamza's infamy and before he was arrested, soon after denied it was him: "I can categorically state that the Queen never raised the issue of Abu Hamza with me. Not surprisingly because my views and attitude in relation to this individual were very well known."

The Royals slowly being exposed as key political movers and shakers interfering all over the place.. more - this time it's Prince Charles spending milions on PR for all sorts of good causes
Then this:

Prince Charles letters: bid to keep parts of missives to ministers secrethttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/12/prince-charles-letters-legal- attempt
Seven government departments launch last-ditch legal attempt to block disclosure of portions of prince's 'black spider memos'
Rob Evans - guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 October 2012 14.30 BST
Seven government departments have launched a last-ditch legal attempt to keep secret portions of confidential letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.
The legal manoeuvre was initiated shortly before they lost a long-running tribunal, which ordered that, for the first time, the prince's letters should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The three judges sitting in the FoI tribunal decided in September that the public had a right to know how the prince seeks to change government policy behind the scenes.
The government departments' latest move comes after they had already spent seven years resisting the disclosure of the letters.
The long battle started in 2005 when the Guardian submitted freedom of information requests to see copies of the prince's letters to ministers over a seven-month period.
The prince has for some years been criticised for "meddling" in government affairs and seeking to persuade ministers to alter policy.
He is believed to write to ministers arguing his personal point of view in letters which have become known as "black spider memos" because of his handwriting.
It has been reported that his interventions have included complaints about "politically correct interference" in people's lives and the threat of an American-style personal injury culture becoming prevalent in Britain.
Critics say he should stay out of government policy as he is not democratically elected.
Last month, the FoI tribunal ruled that copies of correspondence between the prince and ministers in the seven departments over the seven-month period in 2004 and 2005 should be disclosed.
The tribunal, led by Mr Justice Walker, decided that the "essential reason" for disclosing the letters "is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".
The judges ordered that the letters should be handed over to the Guardian, unless ministers decide to lodge an appeal by next Thursday.
Over the course of two years, the tribunal had heard evidence on whether the letters should be released to the public.
Just before the government departments were defeated at the tribunal, they decided to raise another legal issue which they had not explicitly argued before – that parts of the letters which relate to the privacy of unspecified individuals other than the prince should be blacked out. It is unclear who these individuals are or how extensive the references to them in the letters are.
Lawyers for the Guardian had argued that "this belatedly raised issue" should be ignored as the government had failed to make this argument at any point in the past seven years.
"No explanation has been provided … as to why the issue has only been raised for the first time now, well past the 11th hour, when it cannot have escaped the departments' legal advisers for this long," they argued.
In a ruling published on Friday, the judges in the tribunal have decided that if the government departments do not lodge an appeal, it will spend more time deciding whether those parts of the letters concerning the privacy of these other individuals should be kept secret. That could delay the disclosure of those portions of the letters._________________www.rethink911.orgwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.l911t.comwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Gary McKinnon good news is the 'cover' story today!!
Constant royal interference in a negative way
Charles pending squintillions on stopping embarassing disclosures
Guardian doing a fine job because we need to know the nature of this intervention
For good or ill

Now this latest on Prince Charles' black spider letters
A pardon from the Attorney General for leader of the permanent government Charlie
Do understand he takes precedence over his mum in many contexts including among the 2x13=26 garter knights

Attorney general blocks disclosure of Prince Charles letters to ministers
Grieve overrides freedom of information tribunal, saying release of letters 'could damage prince's ability to perform duties as king'
Rob Evans and Robert Booth - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 October 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/16/attorney-general-blocks-princ e-charles-letters?
The government has blocked the disclosure of a set of confidential letters written by Prince Charles to ministers.
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, issued a veto that puts an absolute block on the publication of the letters. His decision comes after seven government departments lost a long-running freedom of information tribunal over the disclosure of the letters.
The veto overrides last month's ruling by the tribunal that the public had a right to know how the prince sought to change government policy.
Grieve's decision comes after seven years of government resistance to the Guardian's request to see copies of the prince's letters to ministers over a seven-month period in 2004 and 2005.
The prince has for some years been accused of meddling in government affairs and seeking to influence ministers to alter policy.
In a statement on Tuesday, Grieve said: "In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales' preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king.
"It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the government of the day, whatever its political colour."
Katy Clark, a Labour MP who campaigns for an elected head of state, said she was appalled at the attorney general's decision, which she described as "quite shocking".
"The more you hear about the lobbying that Charles has undertaken over decades, the more inappropriate it seems," she said. "My concern is that government policy has been changed and it would seem to me that Prince Charles should not be allowed to hold undue influence over aspects of health policy and architectural policy where he has little experience."
Lord Rogers, the Labour peer and architect whose schemes have been previously torpedoed by Prince Charles's private interventions, said he believed the government's decision would continue to allow the Prince of Wales "to do the damage and disappear without a trace".
"It is either a democracy or it is not," he said. "I don't think anybody, be it a king, prince or poor man, has a right to undermine decisions by private interventions which have a public impact. The only way for Charles to be a public figure is for him to act publicly. It is not democratic to cover up his interventions."
He said the secrecy also clashed with Prince Charles's own claims that he represents a strand of public opinion. He said if he considered himself representative then those representations must be made in full view.
The judges on the information tribunal had ruled in favour of releasing the letters, stating: "The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government."
They decided that "it was fundamental" that the lobbying by the heir "cannot have constitutional status" and cannot be protected from disclosure.
The evidence, they said, "shows Prince Charles using his access to government ministers, and no doubt considering himself entitled to use that access, in order to set up and drive forward charities and promote views, but not as part of his preparation for kingship … Ministers responded, and no doubt felt themselves obliged to respond, but again not as part of Prince Charles's preparation for kingship."
Graham Smith, the director of Republic, a pressure group which is campaigning for greater transparency over royal engagement in politics said: "He clearly has something to hide and this is a cover-up."
"In a very convoluted way, he is saying it is in Charles's interests to use the veto and therefore it is in the public interest, which it isn't.
"There is no credibility to Grieve's remarks and he is simply making sure that Charles isn't exposed for lobbying government."

Quote:

Republic's chief executive Graham Smith said: "It's an open secret that prince Charles lobbies the government. What the public has a right to know is what he is lobbying for and whether he is actually influencing policy."

"The Attorney General's decision is all about protecting Charles and the royal family from scrutiny, putting his demands above the rights of the British people.

"Dominic Grieve has made it clear today that no citizen should ever bother trying to find out what the royals are doing behind closed doors: the government will never let the light in."

"This decision is a serious affront to British democracy and must be challenged," he said."Grieve has said this is about protecting prince Charles's impartiality, but that impartiality doesn't exist."

The FoI request had been made in order to see the letters between Prince Charles and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Education, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office.

The Prince of Wales has been protected by the Attorney General's power of veto Picture: GETTY IMAGES

The Attorney General has blocked the publication of letters from the Prince of Wales to government departments to avoid “seriously undermining” his future role as king.

Dominic Grieve said the Prince’s letters were “particularly frank” and would “potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality” if published.

He used a ministerial veto to overturn a ruling from three judges that would have allowed the publication of 27 letters sent to the Labour government during Tony Blair’s premiership.

The judges had said last month that there was a considerable public interest in the publication of the letters to the Departments for Business, Health, Education, Environment, Culture, Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Office, and ordered the departments to release them.

But Mr Grieve decided there was an “exceptional case” for him to use his power of veto to prevent the Prince’s “most deeply held and personal beliefs” becoming public.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum